WATCH: The Big Bang never happened?

Here's something you're not seeing reported in the news: the Big Bang may not have ever happened. New research posits that the universe may have existed forever, noting that general relativity can only explain what happened after the Big Bang, not during or before.

Get all the details HERE and scroll down for analysis from Glenn.

GLENN: Oh.

PAT: The science is settled. It's absolutely settled.

GLENN: This should be gigantic news. New quantum studies have shown that there is no such thing as the Big Bang.

STU: Yeah, it didn't happen. Why are you such a big science denier and think this didn't happen.

PAT: Because yesterday you were asking, why are you denying there was a Big Bang. But now you're asking, why are we denying that there wasn't and saying that there was. Yeah, the science is in. It's conclusive.

STU: We know the universe has existed forever. It's eternal.

GLENN: Is that a quote?

STU: The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

PAT: It's the only way they could resolve the math. They could not get the math right.

GLENN: Because everything breaks down the closer you get to the Big Bang.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: So all physics breaks down.

PAT: Yes. And it certainly breaks down during and prior to the Big Bang because they don't have any clue as to what was before it, how it happened, how this matter formed, what caused it to expand, they don't know any of that.

STU: Right. This brings up the question as to what exactly caused this to exist, if it's been there forever. What came before it?

PAT: Right.

STU: And as always, there's no answer to that.

PAT: Right.

STU: At least the Big Bang --

PAT: But they know everything, but shut up and believe everything they say every day about climate change and everything else because they always know, until they don't. Then now they do.

GLENN: This is huge news! The Big Bang has been discredited?

STU: I mean, maybe some of those are holding on to the antiquated ideas of the Big Bang. But this is a legitimate study.

PAT: Legitimate stuff. It's really fascinating to read the article. It almost sounds like a Sunday school class.

GLENN: Yeah, "the universe is eternal."

PAT: Yeah. It's interesting.

STU: And how many times have we heard the Big Bang -- like, you're a complete idiot if you don't believe exactly in the Big Bang as described.

Listen to this quote: The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there. As Glenn was just describing, they knew the whole time that it couldn't have possibly happened the way they were describing it, but you still were an idiot for not believing it their way.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's unbelievable.

PAT: Yes. Yes. So they picked this arbitrary. It's not arbitrary. I mean, they used mathematics to figure it out. But they believed it was 13.8 billion years ago that the Big Bang happened. And now, not so much. It's always been here.

[laughter]

Oh, wait. Well -- what happened to create it then? Who did that?

GLENN: You know, you are such a science denier.

PAT: I know. I know. I know.

GLENN: You want to talk about flat earther. Here's the guy who thinks the universe is 13.6 billion years old?

PAT: .8.

GLENN: It's been here forever.

PAT: That's what they'll start saying to the Big Bang theorists. That's what they'll say to them now.

GLENN: No. They won't say that. They won't say that. I think the exact opposite is happening. I think the Big Bang, they will not let go of.

STU: I think you're right.

GLENN: The Big Bang stays.

STU: They'll keep it around for a while.

PAT: Because they have no other explanation for anything. They have to have it.

GLENN: And the Big Bang has been so good at discrediting an eternal being.

PAT: Right.

STU: Like dinosaurs left the earth for a myriad of reasons until they all decided to leave the earth because of meteors that left the earth. I remember seeing that on the cover of TIME Magazine. And it was in the '80s where that's where that came to be. We all realize that, okay, now the accepted thing is that they left because of meteors. But that was never the -- before that, that was not the truth. But scientists were always right in that entire process. They were right until they changed their mind. And they were right again. And only they knew they were wrong before. But they're not wrong then. They're only wrong then now obviously.

PAT: Don't make me go all Piltdown Man on you.

STU: Are you going to do it?

GLENN: Do it. Do it. Do it.

PAT: I might do it.

Okay. For 40 years, for 40 years, scientists believed they had found the missing link. The evolutionary missing link. And they found this skull. And they named him Piltdown Man. And Piltdown Man was the link between primordial man and humans.

Okay. So whatever ape-like creature that we were, this is the link, and then there was us. And for 40 years in the early 20th century, they believed this.

And then in the 1940s, '42, 43-ish, in there somewhere, someone came around and said, this skull is part plastic. I don't think this is actual human bonage here. It seems to be plastic. And they're like, okay, yeah, that wasn't the missing link. Forty years scientists believed that.

GLENN: That can't be true because plastics were new in the 1920s. So either your time is off --

PAT: The timing may be off.

GLENN: Yeah. It is.

PAT: It might be. But it was 40 years, and it was partially plastic. It was partially man-made. Perhaps it was some other sort of polymer.

GLENN: I hate to be a Piltdown Man denier.

PAT: Piltdown Man -- turns out to be a hoax.

STU: It definitely was a hoax.

PAT: It was a hoax.

STU: This is on the Pat Gray best of.

PAT: Oh, yeah. This is on the rotating list.

STU: One of his biggest hits. A lot of times this is the encore at the concert for Pat.

GLENN: He's like, good night, everybody. And they're like, Piltdown! Piltdown! Piltdown! Piltdown!

[laughter]

Okay. I think it was the 1940s.

PAT: For 40 years!

[laughter]

It's like, a long, long time ago.

[laughter]

GLENN: All right. I can't believe he didn't start with Piltdown.

PAT: I will find out exactly what it was made of. Skull fragments. Jaw bone. I'm not seeing what it's made of yet, but I will. I will.

GLENN: Interesting. Interesting.

PAT: I will.

GLENN: And this is the same guy just a few minutes ago said the universe was 13.8 billion years old.

STU: Sucker. This guy will fall for anything that we all believed for decades.

GLENN: What a dope this guy is.

PAT: How long has the Big Bang theory existed? It's been pretty long.

STU: It's been number one for several years.

GLENN: Didn't Hawking have something to do with that? Because Hawking was the one who kind of tried to roll the universe back. Right?

Does anybody know?

PAT: I'm not sure. I don't know.

STU: I don't know the answer to that.

GLENN: I think he was the one who said, let's roll it back. It's expanding. Let's roll it back.

PAT: It's part of the general relativity of Einstein's theory. So he may have started it. And Hawking may have tweaked it. I don't know.

STU: Yeah, because you had the period of 380,000 years of an afterglow light pattern. Then the dark ages. Then the first stars were about 400 million years in. Then the development of galaxies and planets. Dark energy accelerated expansion to today. Of course, that's -- I should say, that's what we believed last week. Now we know it's stupid.

PAT: Completely nonsense.

STU: That was -- it's idiotic now. We can all look back to those times last week when we believed there was a Big Bang.

GLENN: This is such big news. It should be on the front page of everything. The Big Bang isn't right.

[laughter]

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Can Trump make D.C. great again?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

For years, Washington, D.C., has been a symbol of everything wrong with big government—riddled with crime, manipulated stats, and soft-on-crime policies that let gangs terrorize innocent citizens while the elite turn a blind eye. Now, President Trump is stepping up, deploying federal agents after a savage attack on a hero like Edward Coristine, vowing no more "Mr. Nice Guy" as he promises to jail criminals, clear out the homeless encampments, and restore order just like he sealed the border. This isn't just a crackdown; it's a reclamation of our capital from the chaos liberals have unleashed.

Glenn has already covered this on his radio show, exposing how legacy media and Democrats twist crime numbers. They claim that there was a 35% drop in crime while ignoring FBI data showing only a 10% decline, and murders are still sky-high compared to pre-pandemic days. Trump's policies draw parallels to the 1990s, when Congress took control and turned things around, proving that strong leadership can counteract progressive failures. With Democratic mayors crying "power grab" in failing cities like Chicago and Baltimore, it's clear: Trump's bold move is a lifeline for liberty, not a threat. Our capital should be a shining example of America, where leaders can work in peace and foreign representatives can see what this nation stands for without fearing for their lives.

Our nation's heart is at risk from the gaslighting establishment that benefits from disorder, absurdly framing Trump's actions as a "military takeover." Is this the leadership America needs, or will we let the swamp dictate the narrative?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Can we trust the media's spin? Should Trump expand this fight? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you support President Trump's deployment of federal agents to crack down on D.C. crime?

Do you believe liberal media and Democrats are manipulating crime stats to undermine Trump's efforts?

Is Trump's plan to jail criminals and relocate the homeless a necessary step to restore order in our capital?

Do you see Democratic policies as the root cause of rising violence in cities like D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore?

Should Trump extend this federal intervention to other failing blue cities to protect American liberty?